Middletown planning board hears public concerns as developer seeks zoning overlay for West Main/Coddington site

The Middletown Planning Board held a public hearing on a petition by Middletown Commons Town Center LLC to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning for town‑owned parcels fronting on West Main Road and Coddington Highway.

Gerard Galvin, an attorney with Galvin Law representing Middletown Commons Town Center LLC, said the developer is asking the board to recommend three actions to the Town Council: change the future land‑use designation from “institutional” to “general business” on Future Land Use Map L4; rezone the lots from public/traffic‑sensitive to general business/traffic‑sensitive; and adopt a West Main–Covington overlay district to govern size, uses and design for the site. “Tonight is about the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan versus the specifics of the project itself,” Galvin said.

The purpose of the changes, Galvin and the project planner said, is to allow a single unified mixed‑use development that the developer and town negotiated through a development agreement signed in October 2024. Sean Brown, speaking for the town administration, gave a history of the reuse planning process that led to the current stage and said the town views the site as an economic development opportunity. “The town has targeted this land for development for decades,” Brown said.

Planner Paige Bronk, retained by the development team, told the board the comprehensive plan and previous studies support mixed‑use redevelopment at this location and that the overlay draws heavily on the town’s existing mixed‑use ordinance. Bronk said the underlying zoning change to general business was requested because it most closely matches the uses the overlay anticipates.

The developer and town solicitor described key commercial terms: the proposal anticipates three separate 99‑year ground leases (hotel, housing, retail) and an estimated town revenue from ground rent, taxes and hotel/meals taxes in the developer’s ballpark of about $1.2 million per year. The developer said the residential component would include a minimum of 10% of units designated as affordable housing, a requirement reflected in the development agreement and in the overlay language.

Public commenters raised multiple concerns. Residents questioned the loss of the vision in earlier plans for a municipal center, library and other civic uses; asked for stronger guarantees of contiguous public open space; objected to the overlay’s height allowances for a proposed five‑story hotel (the draft overlay cites a 75‑foot maximum for hotel structures); and urged a complete traffic study before any zoning change. “Look at any New England town center, and you would be hard pressed to find the center of town consists mainly of a hotel,” resident Roberta Duffy said. Melissa Welch, who co‑chaired the town’s Citizens Advisory Committee on the town center during the review process, asked the board to retain public zoning for the portion that the town intends as open space.

Board members and the developer discussed potential refinements. Galvin said the hotel height allowance in the overlay could be lowered and offered alternatives: a reduced maximum if a flat roof is used (the development team said a flat roof could allow roughly 58–60 feet) or a lower pitched‑roof allowance (the team said they could likely work to about 66 feet for a pitched roof). The developer also signaled willingness to limit commercial uses on the municipal parcel if the town prefers. Planner Bronk and the town solicitor said the overlay is intended to apply only to the parcels in the petition, not to other town properties.

After extended public comment and board discussion, the planning board voted to continue the public hearing and reconsider the petition at a later meeting so the developer can return with refinements addressing issues raised by the board and the public. The board did not make a recommendation to the Town Council on the zoning or overlay at this hearing.

The planning board’s next regular meeting was identified as the near‑term control date for the continued hearing; the board voted to continue the matter and set a date for follow‑up. The public will have further opportunities to review design, traffic studies and master‑plan materials if the overlay proceeds to the Town Council and if a master‑plan application is filed.

For now, the board and the public remain divided on the central tradeoffs: enabling a privately financed mixed‑use project on town land versus preserving the site’s municipal and community‑space character under stricter public‑use zoning. The petition process and the forthcoming master‑plan review will determine whether the overlay approach can be rewritten to address the public’s concerns before a council decision.